WHERE TO NOW?

Having given the dust time to settle from last week’s EGM, I think it’s now appropriate to turn our attention to the big three issues facing UKIP over the next few months. They are (at least for me):

Internal elections.

Great Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Constitutional reform.

Internal elections are relatively straightforward – we’ve been running them for years.

This time, we may be facing two sets of overlapping elections. I say may for two reasons: Firstly, a “unity” leadership candidate may come forward, and no other candidates stand against him/her. This is not inconceivable – Nigel was re-elected unopposed in the run-up to the 2015 election, having turned down the offer of an extension of office. The second reason is that the returning officer(s) may decide to run both elections at the same time.

As ever, the primary point of consideration is what the constitutionsays – this trumps anything the NEC or an EGM might decide. Two clauses are relevant:

“7.5: [a leadership] election shall be held within 90 days of the completion of the Leader’s term of office.”

In practise, this is 90 days from 17th Feb, making it ~18th May.

One third of the NEC would normally have been elected in November, but in this instance, 6.11 was invoked:

“In exceptional circumstances the NEC may extend the periods of office of retiring members for a period not exceeding six months.”

This was specifically at the request of Bolton, so they could decide if they wanted to revise the way they were elected, e.g. proportional and/or regional representation. In fact, this proves to be a very good example of the NEC giving the leader what he wants!

Again, in practise, this means NEC elections by the end of April. This means two options present themselves. Either:

Bring forward the leadership election date by a couple of weeks, or:

Accept that the retiring members would be unable to vote on any business passing between the 1st and the 18th May.

Since the NEC only has to meet six times a year at most, and seven voting members including the chairman provide a valid quorum for normal business, neither of these options seems particularly disastrous.

Under BB of the rule book, which will probably, for cost reasons, be utilised for the first time, having two questions and sets of candidates on the same ballot paper is easy – a training example for NEC, ROs, MEPs etc. and now for readers can be found here.

This also has the benefit of eliminating manual counts – the last NEC election with 91 candidates was a logistical nightmare, and spilled over into a second day (I suspected this so didn’t bother attending day one).

For those without interweb skills or the assistance of family/friends/colleagues, I do concede that listening to a very long list of names on a Freephone number with a dialect more Dalek than speaking clock is a chore – real actor voices are only used for lists of ~6 candidates or less – but then we should be looking at getting fewer, and better candidates to stand in the first place. And the pretty-much-unlimited extra space provided by an electronic ballot paper – see example above – will help those talented candidates get their message across (including award, commendation and degree certificate screenshots, if necessary).

Cost wise, on the one hand, we would need to mail the pin codes to members with the associated cost and Simply Voting’s charges – but on the other hand, your’re facing mailing out multiple ballot papers, along with Independence magazine and the costs of a manual count – so hopefully EV will prove to be significantly cheaper, a big boon in our current straights.

The second key issue facing us in the run-up to May is the Great Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A good introduction can be found here.

I have written a 6 page “Janet and John” for the Tec Sub-committee and NEC which is too detailed for here, but suffice it to say we are impacted in a big way:

Websites – national, regional, branch and MyUKIP will need to change.

There will be implications for branches with paper membership forms in dusty filing cabinets.

There will need to be an audit of the national and local databases.

Anyone we share information with, e.g. printers, will need to be informed when our information changes.

We will need to delete information held, on request.

Etc. etc.

I had hoped that we would be well on the way to meeting our obligations with no fuss, but then, “Events…” as Macmillan said. Nevertheless, this should now be a priority, and I hope that there will be a communication to members as soon as practicable.

The final point for discussion in the near future is reform of the constitution. Whilst I agree changes are necessary, and even beneficial, two key points need to be borne in mind.

The first is that there are usually higher priorities, for example, addressing the detailed needs of GDPR, above, to meet the required legal deadline should very much take priority over constitutional change – and anyone who disagrees is welcome to indemnify us against any resulting fines!

The other point is that a change everyone thinks is good is not always as simple as it first might seem. Take, for the example, the un-controversial (?) proposal that postal voting should have been allowed at the EGM. What is the point of having a physical EGM? It’s to allow both sides to make a reasoned argument, for and against the no-confidence motion, and then for members to make an informed decision as a result. I, for one, agree with those believe that Henry’s performance on the day lost him the still-undecided vote.

I was in Eastleigh the week before Diane James lost to the Lib-Dens, and it was clear that the (early) postal votes had swung it – they conceded our momentum was such that another week would have carried us over the victory line.

So imagine if people had voted early on the no-confidence motion, and significant new facts came out that could have swung it a different way? And what’s the point of a physical meeting when votes already cast have decided the way the die is cast? That is why talk of “allowing postal votes” at the EGM is misguided – you either have postal, including electronic voting, as per BB, or you have a physical meet-up in the biggest, most convenient venue possible, – but NOT both.

This is just one minor example of how carefully constitutional changes need to be thought out – most members will not be lawyers, and will be unable to spot the pitfalls of seemingly harmless “improvements”.

In conclusion, with all the personnel changes, voting changes and procedural changes that the next few months necessitate, I recommend that we let these all bed-in, and defer from discussing further constitution change until at least early summer. Then, we can hopefully set aside the time and effort to try and get things right.

Will our 6th constitution be perfect? No. Will it satisfy all factions? No. But at least it will be a further step on the asymptotic route there.

About The Author

Related Posts

55 Comments

Rabbit
on March 2, 2018 at 1:53 pm

We are never going to comply with GDPR. Despite the need for committee members to sign undertakings of confidentiality, in some branches membership lists are handed to all committee members upon request and are then kept at home, and when committee members resign/retire they retain those membership lists and even use them for personal mailings. Proper legally compliant control over sensitive data only happens when paid staff work from an office, where passwords are used and the staff are forbidden from taking information home. UKIP by contrast is run by volunteers, many of whom operate in a very homespun and informal manner, and local Spanish practices are never audited or members disciplined for breaching the formal undertaking. So it would be very easy for an infiltrator from another party to join a UKIP branch committee, see what goes on and drop us in the poo, big time, unless the Party Chairman takes the initiative to deal with this now.

Rob McWhirter
on March 2, 2018 at 2:04 pm

John B. Has someone looking into it as a priority, and I await feedback, but don’t disagree with your points…

Rob McWhirter
on February 27, 2018 at 12:19 pm

Re: Lexdrum – David Challice replies…

“We are in Devon because it is an ideal office. Cheap to run, with dedicated professional staff. Various leaders and Party Chairmen have come to Lexdrum House fired by a zeal for change, but once they see it they are supportive, despite ill-informed comments from others who simply don’t know what they are talking about.

It is not practical to run the main administration office of any organisation with volunteers. We’ve tried it and it doesn’t work.

As for the expense, Lexdrum is incredibly cheap to run. if Head Office was in London one month’s rent would pay six months in Devon.

If Head Office moved to Grimsby, the Party would be in total chaos. None of the staff would relocate, so the Grimsby Volunteers would be out of their depth, with no familiarity or comprehension of what is involved.

The cost of relocating to Grimsby, installing phone systems, computer systems, the inevitable hiatus of the usual functions of the office (email, membership renewals, paying invoices, liaising with Elcom, checking on donations, administering the branches etc) would cost the Party £-thousands. The Grimsby volunteers would also need to learn how to use the hugely complicated Subscriber database, and that would take months.

There are no snotty Tories at Head Office. They wouldn’t lower themselves.

David Challice
UKIP Head Office”

Rob McWhirter
on February 27, 2018 at 11:51 am

Re: Lexdrum – David Challice has asked me to post this:

“We are in Devon because it is an ideal office. Cheap to run, with dedicated professional staff. Various leaders and Party Chairmen have come to Lexdrum House fired by a zeal for change, but once they see it they are supportive, despite ill-informed comments from others who simply don’t know what they are talking about.

It is not practical to run the main administration office of any organisation with volunteers. We’ve tried it and it doesn’t work.

As for the expense, Lexdrum is incredibly cheap to run. if Head Office was in London one month’s rent would pay six months in Devon.

If Head Office moved to Grimsby, the Party would be in total chaos. None of the staff would relocate, so the Grimsby Volunteers would be out of their depth, with no familiarity or comprehension of what is involved.

The cost of relocating to Grimsby, installing phone systems, computer systems, the inevitable hiatus of the usual functions of the office (email, membership renewals, paying invoices, liaising with Elcom, checking on donations, administering the branches etc) would cost the Party £-thousands. The Grimsby volunteers would also need to learn how to use the hugely complicated Subscriber database, and that would take months.

There are no snotty Tories at Head Office. They wouldn’t lower themselves.

David Challice
UKIP Head Office”

Stout Yeoman
on February 26, 2018 at 11:45 pm

Dear God, on this thread alone we have had “… the outgoing chairman informed a colleague of mine that there were five duds on the present NEC.” and “I hear on the grapevine that last week Gerard Batten put forward two perfectly good suggestions for a new Party Chairman, only for both to be rejected by the NEC.” with Frederica, not for the first time, treating gossip and rumour as gospel.

A friend of mine who is on team Batten told me that only one name went forward and it was ratified at today’s meeting not last week’s fictious one. The choice is necessarily a “perfectly good one” for being ratified. No-one was rejected and even if they were then given that the majority of NEC members are not “dud” (according to gossip about Oakden) the choices they rejected, even in this fantasy, cannot have been “perfectly good” . As to Oakden’s remark this is clearly an exaggeration as a colleague of mine said there are no more than two duds on the NEC.

I’ve changed my mind about the editor’s suggestion for UKIP Daily to become an officially endorsed communication hub. The party will be right to ignore it.

MrBav
on February 27, 2018 at 12:39 pm

Dear Stout
I think we should be fair to the editorial team who only censor under extreme circumstances. UKIPD remains the best forum, albeit with current site issues and, again, they are being gradually resolved… Keep Buggering On Sir !

1) Raising money so the Party does not go bust.
2) Finally starting to say something about Brexit, which is being stolen from us under our very noses.

This is important, while complying with the law (data protection regulations) and the Constitution (NEC, Leadership elections) is urgent.

Constitutional reform right now would be a huge mistake – this will be a very divisive subject and there will be no agreement on what the new Constitution should look like even among those most convinced that constitutional reform is most urgent. Regional NEC or not? Chairman appointed by the Leader, elected by the NEC from amongst themselves, or elected directly by the members? Should the Chairman’s role be split? Should the discipline committee be independent from the NEC or not? Should the NEC be elected representatives, regional chairmen or professionals with areas of responsibilities? Few people will even agree on these issues. The clock is ticking – we are running out of money, and Brexit is being undermined. While the ship is sinking, do we really want to spend time arguing about how the chairs on the deck of the Titanic should be rearranged?

Re. electronic voting, I am a huge supporter – provided adequate security can be assured. When Rob and I worked together on the technical subcommittee of the NEC, I was a huge supporter of the idea but strongly against adopting the solution that was on the table – because the user could not change the password and the (fixed) password was printed on a plastic card mailed to the voter. Massive opportunity for someone to copy the passwords and voting fraud. I believe this is the solution on the table now too.

Also re. NEC elections Article 6.12 of the Constitution is clear “The election shall be by way of a postal ballot of all members.” Re. Leader Article 7.3.2 says the same. Rob told me our legal advisers have told us that this wording includes an electronic ballot. I respectfully disagree – while I like some of these people, they also advised us the Party would not be liable for the libel legal bill and other things. The Rulebook does say Leadership elections shall be done by electronic ballot, but as this is repugnant to the Constitution, the Rulebook rule is invalid.

Rob McWhirter
on February 27, 2018 at 6:52 am

Thanks, Tomaž.

Matthew Richardson was unambiguously clear that e-voting is allowed.

As for pins, for this election, if it’s electronic, they won’t be on membership cards – plan is for a one-off generation mailed out with the rubrics, but I need to see what the nec decided yesterday…

forthurst
on February 26, 2018 at 9:33 pm

We cannot afford to have repeats of the last Leadership or NEC elections. However, if either election is so held then there is no reason to suppose the outcome will not be similar.

Firstly, the Leadership election:

“7.6 The NEC may from time to time as it deems appropriate make rules for the calling and conduct of elections for the post of Party Leader.”

What rules did they make last time?

a) that the candidate is a Brexit expert?

b) that the candidate has a seat in the EU Parliament so that he can speak right up until the vote on the Brexit deal and have access to the research available to members as well as the contact of colleagues?

c) That they are either independently wealthy or have an income which can be drawn whilst performing the duties of a Party Leader?

Our priority as a party and the reason we were formed in the first place was on the issue of Brexit. Therefore our priority must be to oppose the liblabcon whenever they diverge from the mandate of the People. Bolton 0/10

Whilst we are in the EU, our main forum for public debate is the EU Parliament so how can we have a leader who is not there? Bolton 0/10

The leadership does not pay a salary so anyone who seeks that office should be independently wealthy or in receipt of a sufficient income payable irrespective of commitments as well as being solvent. Bolton 0/10

After the Bolton fiasco, perhaps without being moralistic, the NEC should establish that a candidate has a stable background and is not a philanderer otherwise the MSM will focus on that. Bolton 0/10

By the way, 7.1 “The Party Leader shall give political direction to the Party” Bolton 0/10

Last time there were 91 candidates for the NEC; the time before, 41 so supposing we are dealing with an arithmetic progression here, at the next election there will be 141! So who can stand for election? Almost any member who is not a remunerated officer. It should be no surprise therefore that the outgoing chairman informed a colleague of mine that there were five duds on the present NEC. We have no means of knowing who these people are so we that can avoid voting for them again. However, the short biographical details in the Independence mag is insufficient for an accurate assessment of the candidates.

The NEC have it in their power to ensure that a suitable candidates only for Leader are presented for election.

However, the major problem with the NEC is that any tom dick and harry can stand for election so it becomes impossible currently to separate the wheat from the chaff.

UKIP must dematerialise as rapidly as possible. so that e.g . Once the party is capable of secure two-way communication, the Constitution should be rebuilt around that so that e.g all candidates for all internal elections would be required to publish complete audited CVs online. Perhaps candidates for re-election to the NEC should require some form of endorsement from their colleagues.

Rob McWhirter
on February 27, 2018 at 6:56 am

I suggested (c) last time on this site, and people rounded on me as undemocratic!

I think (c) is essentially implied by the Constitution since the Leader cannot receive a salary (despite Bolton having been paid a “stipend” which was completely against the rules but that’s what you get for having a Treasurer who is a politician who thinks rules don’t apply to him if he uses a different word for the same thing).

Rob McWhirter
on February 28, 2018 at 8:49 am

Henry’s “stipend” is another example of the NEC helping the leader rather than thwarting him!

Rob McWhirter
on February 26, 2018 at 7:09 pm

For the avoidance of doubt, folks, I am NOT going to agree, whatever the circumstances, that the oarty should knowingly and intentionally fail tomprepare for the GDPR.

I am with you Rob, but surely both concerns can be handled at the same time?

Rob McWhirter
on February 28, 2018 at 11:51 am

I thnk you will find GDPR preparation, and the short deadline, May 25th, very onerous.

But I am willing to be proved wrong…

Conrade Keith
on February 26, 2018 at 6:10 pm

I hear on the grapevine that last week Gerard Batten put forward two perfectly good suggestions for a new Party Chairman, only for both to be rejected by the NEC.

This doesn’t strike me as the NEC trying so hard to give the leader what he wants as described above and by Steve Crowther in his speech in Birmingham.

The NEC should only be rejecting the leader’s proposed Chairman if there are constitutional or vetting concerns. It should not be doing so for political reasons.

Is this one reason why we were stuck with Paul Oakden for 18 months?

We seem have gone from a brief flourishing of openness in the lead-up to the EGM, back to wrangling behind closed doors again.

Perhaps Mr Batten should follow his very public slapping down of the Party Treasurer with an email to all members telling us the names he proposed, who on the NEC rejected them and what he’s planning to do to shake this party out of its paralysis of inaction.

Donald Duck
on February 26, 2018 at 8:27 pm

CK,

That is very interesting, I thought it was a bit strange that we had not heard anything, what is the point of appointing a leader who is not allowed to lead?

Frederica
on February 26, 2018 at 9:27 pm

Well said! “Wrangling behind closed doors again”. “NEC rejecting leader’s proposed chairman”. These are precisely the points that triggered my request for ‘truth’ about what has been going on behind the scenes in UKIP over the last couple of years. The article that I wrote on this topic earned me quite a few sneers and snipes from commenters. But…..there wasnt much forthcoming that illuminated the darkness. As far as I was concerned, I saw no reason to change my view that there are elements inside the Party that seek to hold the Party back and to frustrate any attempt at making it electable again! I was quite impressed by Gerard Batten in his Sky News interview. it doesn’t sound to me, so far, as though he is going to be allowed to ‘lead’. Rather, he will most likely have to submit to being ‘driven’ . I don’t think he is the sort of man to accept the leadership on those terms!

Emily
on February 26, 2018 at 11:07 pm

Comrade Keith

Great post.
Absolutely tell us all those two names, Gerard.
Having actually done something well – is the NEC now reverting to reputation as pains in the backside and spanner in all works.
Hope not.
Names please and reasons…….
I have real faith in Gerard as have many of us.
If he proposes, the NEC can darn well stop opposing – because our loyalty is to our new leader, thanks. and one most of us like very much.
Name them NEC or the shame is on you.
Too much secrecy in the past – lets be open now.

Rob McWhirter
on February 27, 2018 at 6:59 am

I think it VERY unlikely Gerard would discuss candidate chairmen by email, ahead of Monday’s meeting… 🙄

Chris-
on February 28, 2018 at 1:52 pm

I too would like to know more about the facts on this subject.

Were two nominees for post of chair rejected by the NEC ?
If so, which two nominees were rejected ?
What were the reasons for their rejections ?
Will any NEC member come back to UKIP Daily to answer these questions ?

I won’t be putting in a FOI request along with a £1 coin.
Simple questions I guess I will not learn the answers to.
It underlines the reasons and points made by Frederica about not re-joining.

Rob McWhirter
on February 28, 2018 at 2:19 pm

The NEC do not discuss chairmanships by email a few days before they are due to meet in person!

I’m sure some of this stuff mentioned needs to be done, but blimey!
Meanwhile brexit is not happening, loss of members, no money in the bank.
Might this time be better spent fighting local elections to actually make a difference.
Your living in cloud cuckoo land if you think this is what needs to be done next

Rob.McWhirter
on February 26, 2018 at 3:20 pm

Legal fines land if we don’t!

Emily
on February 26, 2018 at 1:55 pm

Having given the dust time to settle from last week’s EGM, I think it’s now appropriate to turn our attention to the big three issues facing UKIP over the next few months. They are (at least for me):

You must be kidding.
We haven’t the luxury of all this.
Nigel Farage pulled the plug on Brexit and seems to tried to finish off UKIP by his actions and minions.
We should be fighting for Brexit not fiddling with Data.
We should be out there trying to get the working working class of Brexit – supporting our party.
That can only be done by confirming Gerard and moving on fast.
This is what is coming….https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-26/corbyns-brexit-speech-significant-political-gamble-would-leave-uk-colony-eu
A complete and utter betrayal by the entire lib/lab/con and here we are financially broke thanks to AMW and Farage’s protogee and talking about data protection.
Forgive me.
We should be getting on with asking any member who can afford it to send in a donation of as much as possible – and moving to get on with a campaign to make inroads.
And starting cutting costs to a bone.
Start making ourselves far more visible and putting everything we have into the local election but also into recruiting.
We need bodies on the ground and money in the bank.
We need a lower subscription for the first and a generous handout from us all for the second.
Call it a ‘Gerard bonus’
Have any vets come in?
Brexit is being as good as scrapped – whilst UKIP is sitting in turmoil – exactly as planned by someone in the USA as I see it.
Messing around internally isn’t an option – we need a public fight back.
Who is doing the press releases?
Where is the new UKIP Shadow cabinet.
Did I miss that?.
Now you can all hate me if you like.

Rob mcwhirter
on February 26, 2018 at 2:03 pm

Dear Emily,

The leadership and NEC elections are a constitutional requirement. No-one can trump that.

GDPR compliance is a legal requirement, and we will be fined if we fail to comply.

As for constitutional reform, I agree it needs to be on the back burner for now.

Shadow cabinets etc. are a matter for the new leader – hence the need to get the elction out the way.

All necessary housekeeping, I’m afraid.

Eddie
on February 26, 2018 at 2:33 pm

Rob I admire your work but is that reply really necessary in this situation.
If you were at Dunkirk would you be the one standing on the beech telling the soldiers your not allowed on the boats until you can produce a valid swim test certificate. “Hey I don’t make the rules”

Rob McWhirter
on February 26, 2018 at 3:22 pm

We’re not the ones who define GDPR compliance, and our many enemies would live to use it to finish us off!

Emily
on February 26, 2018 at 2:44 pm

Sorry Rob.
Be as constitutional as you like but Rome is burning and by the time you have settled your constitutional requirements to the detriment of all else, the country will be a burnt out wreck.
My cheque for £100 which I can ill afford, will be going in on Wednesday – I challenge you all and then some to match it.
Surely at least a thousand others can match it – to show our confidence in Gerard and his new way forward.
Then it would be very nice if people can put ambitions on the back burners and make it perfectly clear there will be no challenge to Gerard’s leadership and find a tidy way of confirming his position so we can move on.
I suggest anyone who wants to challenge him finds the money to do so – up front.
UKIP’s money can be better spent.
About time this party stopped phaffing around and got on with its goal – the ‘independence’ of Britain.
The ‘independence’ of being a sovereign state and Brexit.
The’ independence’ of being a British people’s state not a diversity hellhole.
The ‘independence’ of being a democratic modern state – not a sharia ridden 7th century throw back.
We are being betrayed across the board.
Of course we can get on Rob.
Never heard of juggling.
Plenty to be done.
Red tape isn’t only strangling Europe it appears to be strangling UKIP.
A will and a way – no wonder the people out there – and the members – see nothing but nothing being done.
I for one am not impressed.

Rob McWhirter
on February 26, 2018 at 3:24 pm

Sorry, Emily, I agree it would be good if noone stands against Gerard – I covered that above, but GDPR is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT, and anyone on the NEC, or standing for the NEC who thinks it can be ignored is asking for trouble.

Emily
on February 26, 2018 at 3:44 pm

Sorry Rob
You are perfectly able to get on with plenty other than data protection.
For a start I heard Ben Walker telling us about the running costs at our hustings.
All power to him.
Why are we sitting in Devon?
Paying enormous rental to someone’s relative I suspect.
Far too much of that going on at the top of UKIP for too darn long
Our support is coming from the middle middle class and down to the working working class.
Lets leave snotty Tories and move in with our neighbours.
An office for a tenth the price in what — Birmingham, Liverpool, Grimsby – any where – where the votes are – and where we have plenty of membership to work voluntarily.
Are you putting in your £100 quid Rob – or can you get others in your branch who can and will.?
We need practicalities here.
And just let people start threatening us as you claim.
Henry Bolton tried it I seem to remember.
Time is running out – just as intended when Farage stuck his spanner in the works – isn’t he doing well with his new ‘career’ – so much for Brexit.
We need money, we need members and we NEED TO MOVE ON.
So remind me – who is our press officer?
When can we get our cabinet members?
When can the party pull its collective finger out?
Every day I imagine we are watching trickle down in our membership.
It will only stop when we appear to be doing something – data protection will not inspire.

Emily
on February 26, 2018 at 10:46 pm

Then lets find out who is.
Hands up please!
Anyone dare?
With the party in the state it is.
Lets see who you are…….

Purple Potty Mouth
on February 26, 2018 at 4:16 pm

Emily – snotty Tories? At Newton Abbott? If you move to the Midlands you will need to get new staff – what about the magnificent ladies in Devon? They have already seen both numbers and their pay cut yet they worked their socks off for the recent EGM. Kirstan Herriot already commutes to the big smoke to work part time for David Kurten AM.

At least it’s not London – and London prices. And there are ordinary working folk and EU persecuted fishermen down thaar too you know.

Emily when I first joined UKIP the Head Office was in Birmingham. Thanks to the late Graham Booth MEP he secured Lexdrum House. You have obviously never been there as It is on an industrial estate! Labour is cheaper than in Birmingham and there are plenty of volunteers when required. One lady goes in every day and stuffs envelopes, I have been there many times including telephone campaigns when we have had the conference room packed with people and telephones.

Moving would require entirely new staff as no one from Newton Abbot area would move to a city in the Midlands or North. Also where do you think leaflets etc. would be stored and distributed from? You would need a warehouse unit as well as the office. Delivery Partners with whom we have a good relationship are just up the road.

Frederica
on February 26, 2018 at 9:49 pm

Great comment Emily. Surely the ‘housekeeping’ if it is a legal requirement (I assume by the Electoral Commission?) can go on in Tandem with getting the Party stabilised. Gerard Batten should be elected unopposed and allowed to get on with the urgent job of leading the Party and rallying supporters. You would think that there are those inside UKIP who have forgotten (or maybe don’t care all that much) that there are voters out there who feel that they have no Party to vote for that cares about their views. Now that Comrade Corbyn has come out and admitted that he will pretty much stymie the BREXIT that most oeople voted for, UKIP is more needed than ever!

UKIP needs a leader that will lead in away that voters will be able to understand and relate to. Also, UKIP needs a leader who will be ‘allowed’ to lead, not just be a cipher. A leader who will promote UKIP policies that will inspire voters and draw in (badly needed) new members and supporters.

Emily
on February 26, 2018 at 10:59 pm

Absolutely Frederica
Lets get on it.
Fiddling whilst Brexit is being betrayed all over the place – the country invaded and occupied in our very faces.
And data protection is the paramount issue.
I would still like to know the extent of Hope not Hate with the party.
Did Soros get our membership lists?
No data protection then if we got involved with that evil pro islamic globalist leftish bunch.
Did we?
Anyone snitching at me over Devon better have a word with Ben Walker and with what he said at out hustings and very well he said it too.
We should be based further north.
We are a British party and we should be central.
Our greatest potential is arguably the Labour Brexit country not Lib Dem Devon Central.

Rob McWhirter
on February 27, 2018 at 7:01 am

Not electoral commission, but information commissioners office, ICO – the new law affects everyone, not just people litical parties.

Stout Yeoman
on February 26, 2018 at 1:30 pm

Thanks to Sponplaque for the note of caution about constitutional change. Members need to keep the law of unintended consequences in mind when suggesting changes and allow that whatever brilliant idea currently possesses them may be less brilliant than they realise. Tweak a clause too cavalierly and find later that it doesn’t have the legal effect you thought or that it affects another clause in a way unforeseen when, in the High Court, the party finds itself on the wrong end of a judgement. Constitutional change cannot be rushed. Even if it became a priority it needs to undergo extensive review (i.e. slowly and carefully) with stress testing (by lawyers) before being put to members.

I happen to think the constitution is sound enough as it is. Much of the lament about it is not actually due to structural defect at all but more often than not the various complaints reflect the party’s lack of money to spend on better IT, more staff for back office functions, training, branch support etc. And a constitution cannot protect against weak or incompetent managers.

A common request is for the NEC to be based on regional representatives and elections. This was fully debated as a conference motion in September 2016 at Bournemouth – and defeated comprehensively. That the party does not publicise for non-attending members what the motions were and their outcomes (to members who cannot be
bothered to attend the party’s one main event of the year) is a management failure. While such motions are advisory only – like the referendum – they reflect democracy on the party which proponents of constitutional change claim to be in favour of. I’d believe the if there was some evident of their respect for it.

Of course it does!
OK, some little alterations needed, so you might still hear some hammering in the background, but meanwhile, the roof is on, the walls are up and newly decorated (smell the fresh paint everywhere?) and the floors are secure and polished.